User:Zzyzx11/Archive29

LA Metro Pages
Dear Zzyzx11 - as you are adjusting these, I wonder if you could offer some (administrative) help? There was debate a while ago about spaces in station names, and while the consensus seems to be that the article should match whatever the agency is using, many pages were moved by well meaning editors to include extra name spaces. While some were moved back - the rest can't be moved back due to the redirect. Can you help? A brief survey shows the following still contain extra spaces in the name:


 * Vermont / Santa Monica (Los Angeles Metro station)]
 * Westlake / MacArthur Park (Los Angeles Metro station)
 * Vermont / Santa Monica (Los Angeles Metro station)
 * Expo Park / USC (Los Angeles Metro station)
 * Expo / La Brea (Los Angeles Metro station)
 * La Cienega / Jefferson (Los Angeles Metro station)
 * Olympic / 26th Street (Los Angeles Metro station)
 * Colorado / 17th Street (Los Angeles Metro station)
 * Colorado / 4th Street (Los Angeles Metro station)
 * Little Tokyo / Arts District (Los Angeles Metro station)

Thanks, 白痴美國 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The background on this is that per Manual of Style, WP:PUNCT is applied to article titles. Regardless of whether there is a consensus from a small group of editors to use whatever official convention is used (see also Official names), WP:COMMONAME and WP:PUNCT ultimately prevails, so you do have those well meaning editors coming in and moving it to reflect whatever WP:SLASH says. The problem is that the wording of much of WP:PUCT has been debated and frequently modified from some time. Thus, I'm going to fix it once, but no further as I do not want to be dragged into an edit/move war over this issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I believe it was only one editor who did this (with no warning) - and he has since stopped. We'll see what happens. Anyway, thanks much for your help and everything else on these pages. 白痴美國 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven   Talk  14:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Peekaboo
You have added information to many station articles about "peek hours". Do you mean peek or peekaboo or should it be peak hour with an "a"? Sw2nd (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The typos have now been corrected. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI...
I took the liberty of zapping that drive-by's comments about Joe Buck, as an obvious BLP violation. In the process, I also took out your comments, since they would seem odd standing by themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, at that moment, I was trying to find an example from the help desk or reference desk archives where a poster originally added their email address, and then an admin blanked it out but still answered the question to some degree. I wanted to see how it was done before I changed my response to resemble that. But since you got there first, I won't bother ... unless that person asks again. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't say I did it "by the book", but in the past I've seen BLP violations get removed. It's still in the history, though. If the user returns with the same spiel, we might want to accelerate the incident, as it were. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

NFL
Could you please discuss issues with this? The old version you reverted to fails GA criteria on almost all counts and the new one meets it, also putting it in line with FA-quality sports league articles like Premier League. Also, there is nothing under discussion - the only thing that is so is Super Bowl titles, which is only contested by an IP and hadn't been responded to for over two weeks. That is such a minor aspect that it doesn't warrant indiscriminately removing content improvement. Toa  Nidhiki05  03:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you responded on that talk page was the thing under discussion, but I failed to realize until now was, as you said, the IP was not active for two weeks. However, you need to add a very clear edit summary. How is this suppose to let me or others know that you are trying in good faith to get this to GA status? This generic edit summary, importing content from your sandbox, is basically interpreted as an unexplained edit to massively change the article without discussion. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, my apologies - I didn't have this issue when I did the same to the American football article (which is now a GA). I did do otherwise to notify - I noted in the talk page history that I was nominating it for good article, and I notified the NFL, American football, and Sports Wikiprojects that their input or actual GA review would be welcome. In this case the article is massively changed in prose, but not as much in content - the goal was to bring it in line with GA policy and other high-quality league articles like the EPL. However, I see what the description is needed. I'll aim to avoid that in the future. Toa  Nidhiki05  03:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the American football article probably gets way less traffic than the NFL one, so that is why you got away with that one earlier. But as you get into subjects that are more popular, it is more important to add a clear edit summary for that because there are more people looking at the article -- even those that do not actively have them on their watchlist but occasionally still look at the various changes each week. Anyway, good luck on the GA nomination. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll be sure to note upon making big changes in the future. :) Toa  Nidhiki05  04:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim Keck
I'm doing research for a project on the Onion. I'm trying to get biographical information on Tim Keck, one of the founders of the Onion and the man behind The Stranger magazine and other projects. I noticed that his wikipedia page has been deleted a couple times. Could you give me some information about why you deleted Tim Keck's wiki page in Sept 2005 for being an attack page. What made it an attack page? Who created the page? What problem could they possibly have with the creator of the Onion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlnb57 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was deleted under what is now Speedy deletion criterion #G10: "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". That version was created by an anonymous unregistered user, before the implementation of the 'autoconfirmed' access level a few years later to restrict the creation of new pages. What made it an attack page was that the anonymous user basically used several profanities to describe and disparage him. Who knows what that person had with Keck? There was nothing substantial to save.


 * As you noticed, a second version was deleted in October 2005. From what I can tell in the logs, JoJan deleted that version under what is now Speedy deletion criterion #A7: "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)." This was also created by an unregistered user before we restricted page creation. And all the content that was there is what you saw in the log -- about a different Tim Keck from Israel, whose only claim to fame apparently was the son of a national welterweight champion. This reason, merely the son of a famous person, is invalid per our guidelines on notable people to warrant separate articles.


 * You are welcome to create a new page on Keck if you become autoconfirmed, or post a request using the Requested articles feature. Be sure to follow Wikipedia's policies, including Biographies of living persons and Notability (people). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hi Zzyzx11, I recently created some new designations for the template Designation for the cities of Albuquerque, Berkeley, Dallas, Davenport, Long Beach, Omaha, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Monica, and Seattle. I have already added them to Designation/text, Designation/colour2 and Designation/abbreviation but I am unable to add them to Designation/colour apparently because it was vandalized last summer and is now protected at the admin level. I thought it would be best to ask someone familiar with the template and saw that you had edited it in the past. Could you please add the color designations for the cities to Designation/colour for me. The code that needs to be added can be found here: User:Cacw/sandbox. Thanks for any help you can give me. If you can't just let me know. Cacw (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Any reasons for that particular choice of colors? They should probably not conflict with the national ones. The reason why I set the Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco designations to a yellow color is that yellow all appear in their respective flags, but are still distinguishable from the California designation (a Golden color for the "Golden State"). Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not really concerned about what colors are chosen, I just wanted to have the designations created so that they can be used. The choices I made were based mainly on trying not to conflict with the national ones as you said and trying to contrast them with the state ones as most city designations will often be on state lists as well. If you want to make all CA city colors the same that is fine with me. I chose these colors because I was trying to distinguish Long Beach, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Riverside, etc. from each other since they are all located in the same metropolitan area. Feel free to change any to whatever you think is best.


 * I also created some for a few states, but I didn't want to try to add too many all at once and wanted to see if you thought they were appropriate before adding them. I will add them to User:Cacw/sandbox so you can see what they look like. Thanks for your help adding these. I really appreciate it. Cacw (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation
Hello! This message is to inform you that WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

 Miss Bono   (zootalk)  18:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Templates
Please leave comments regarding these templates at User:Frietjes. I use her code.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although you may use someone's code, tool, script or gadget, you may not blindly apply them -- you ultimately take full responsibility for any action performed using these features, including any WP:3RR or what may perceived as vandalism or template breakage. I'm puzzled why you used collapse_state parameter on Zacatecas and others using Mexico state navigation box, but failed on noticing it was the same with Colusa County, California and those using US county navigation box. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PDFlink
Template:PDFlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lexein (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

re: Deletion of content from How I Met Your Mother episode articles
I noticed your informative comment here and I thought you might be interested in a discussion I started here about deletion of content from How I Met Your Mother episode articles. -  t u coxn \ talk 00:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that Nikkimaria had a good faith, legitimate reason for blanking those sections, but it is his responsibility to provide a clear edit summary. As WP:FIES says, "When a major edit (e.g. deletion of a substantial amount of text, a significant addition, or a substantial rewrite) doesn't have an edit summary, there are fewer reasons to assume good faith and busy editors may be more inclined to revert the change without checking it in detail". I don't watch those pages myself, nor edit them on a regular basis -- so I'm unfamiliar with what the issue is, so it is best to resolve it with that user. But as long as there are no clear edit summaries, as per the guideline a cited, it it more likely those edits will be reverted by others. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carpinteria, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chumash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Your recent edit to the List of Stanley Cup champions
I don't know about you, but I've never encountered a featured article or list that resorts to such a message. It assumes that the average reader/hockey fan is too stupid to read the article or find the relevant links. Besides, including links in that way encourages similar messages to be added, which disrupts the flow and readability of the article. All it takes is a bit of effort and imagination to include the link without resorting to such a lazy solution. -- Scorpion 0422  04:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your compromise is sufficient. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson article
Hello, Zzyzx11. Regarding this edit you made to the Michael Jackson article, just in case you have not placed that article on your watchlist, I'm stopping by your talk page to let you know that I responded to that edit. This is the discussion where I stated that the Personal life section should not even be there and why that is. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I did not notice that talk page discussion when I made my previous edit. Because the main tag listed the Michael Jackson's health and appearance on that section. I did what is normally suggested on WP:SS: to give a short summary of that detailed article on the primary Michael Jackson page. Plus, you also have MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which recommends that we avoid one-sentence paragraphs.


 * However, that talk page discussion has not been active since June 9, about three weeks ago. Does not seem to be any specific consensus about removing the Personal life section; later comments seem to be primarily about the lead section. If you feel strongly about removing it, and since there as not been much recent activity on the issue, it might be a good time for you to return back to the "Be Bold" step of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and remove it to see if it generates any responses. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize for not seeing that talk page section that discusses organization of the article. A lot of us, maybe most of us, edit an article before we look at the talk page. And I knew why you added the summary, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain why you did. I noted in the edit history that what you added was redundant so that you and/or others could see that immediately. And I've been considering being bold and removing the Personal life section because all of that material, with the exception of the "a host of nieces and nephews also with grand nephews and nieces" part and the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson link, is covered at other parts in the article and per what I stated in the aforementioned section I linked to above. Thanks for the push that I should go ahead and be bold now and remove the Personal life section; I will. The Personal relationships of Michael Jackson link will be moved to the See also section for now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I forgot that the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson link is also in the lead. Oh, and I'm often citing MOS:PARAGRAPHS; I avoid one-sentence paragraphs as much as possible on Wikipedia, either by adding them to an existing paragraph or removing them when they are not needed. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Image discussion at article 17 Mile Drive
A discussion is underway about images on an article you have contributed to. Please help find a consensus for the article stub at: Talk:17-Mile Drive.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

handball disambiguation
Please have a look at Talk:Team handball. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment was only made to clarify what particular consensus is needed, vis-a-vis a primary topic issue, since the originally nominator did not really address that per se. I am otherwise neutral on that particular issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Your revert of my edit was correct, I didn't pay attention that the Gretzky page was a dab not a surname article. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A request
Hi, I've made an edit request here that an admin revert your recent change to some of the date formats, which has left the article inconsistent and was an edit that needed to be discussed first (i.e. was not non-controversial). I'd very much appreciate it if you would revert yourself, given that the article is protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have most definitely reverted my edits had I had the time to review it, but now in light of what is now considered on ANI to be controversial blocks (including yours truly), I am now refraining from even touching that page until the protection expires (you could say as some sort of protest ... or merely listening to others who say admins should never ever make ANY changes under full protection involving such issues ... or just a self-imposed topic ban). Please ask another admin to make the necessary changes. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
To Mark Arsten, Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11: I am blocking each of you because you have edited the Chelsea Manning article through protection, despite several comments and a clear warning on the talk page of the article. It does not matter whether or not you personally think your changes are uncontroversial; in two of the cases, it turns out there is actually controversy about the changes made. You are blocked for the remaining duration of page protection; however, any administrator may unblock you provided that you undertake to make no further edits to the Chelsea Manning page for the duration of the protection.

The administrator tools do not grant you the authority to change fully protected articles based on any reason other than edit requests based on policy and appropriately discussed on the talk page of the article. None of the edits made addressed BLP issues. None of them were urgent or required immediate, undiscussed action. Going forward, I expect you all to refrain from editing protected pages in the absence of a clear talk page consensus on the appropriateness of a specific edit request. Risker (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This was not an undiscussed change; Talk:Chelsea Manning had two editors calling for this particular change to be made at the time. The talk page is tens of thousands of words long; it is quite reasonable to expect that Zzyzx11 missed both your and SlimVirgin's posts. A simple request for reversion would be have sufficed, perhaps on the grounds that the discussion had not gone on for long enough. This is hardly something to immediately jump to a block over, and I would advise an unblock. NW ( Talk ) 18:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the existing warning on the talk page of the article (mine was not the first concern expressed about this very subject), and the fact that date format changes are almost never uncontroversial (and in fact there are multiple sections about date format on the article talk page), I'm having a hard time seeing how this isn't pretty clearcut. You'll note I've not asked for anyone's desysop. Risker (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — ΛΧΣ  21  17:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked per that discussion. Take this as a trout. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My response
Sorry I was away during this wikidrama, but now I have time to respond: I feel that these blocks were punitive not preventive. I was in good faith responding to a request on the talk page about the date format. As per previous consensus, and as written on edit protected, an admin is permitted to make edits that are either uncontroversial or unrelated to the content dispute. Because the talk page was long, and the target of rapid recent editing, I was not able to clearly see what the consensus was, and thus thought it was uncontroversial, and boldly made the change. In my edit summary, I clearly stated that I thought it was uncontroversial.. If I actually knew that this was controversial, I would not have made the change. The sensible thing that should have been done was to revert my edit and kindly point to me the discussion where consensus was established that the dmy format should be used on that article. Otherwise, if the community feels like that NO admin should make uncontroversial edits through protection, or that admins should be automatically blocked when they make a simple mistake like I did (instead of doing a courtesy revert and discuss), consensus should be made to change WP:PPOL accordingly. -- knowing that admins like me will less likely respond to edit protected or any other similar admin assistance requests for fear of getting blocked by other admins. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Nordic combined at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Qualification
Hello Zzyx11. I believe this page should not be deleted as it is an article talk page, and the comment, though redacted, should remain visible in the history for review. I will in any event recreate the page with the appropriate WikiProject template if I can locate it. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  02:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily restored it. See what you can salvage before another admin has a 2nd 3rd opinion (forgot you're also an admin). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:CSD 'cause the policy as written does allow for G7 deletion of an article talk page. Nonsensical to me if we are keeping the article. Would welcome your input. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  03:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on that topic because, on the other hand, it may depend on the circumstances. In some situations, it could be similar to any other namespace: someone can create a talk page accidentally, and only meant to post their comment on another page. Good luck. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Talk page
Why would you delete an article's Talk page??? For some reason, you deleted Talk:2013 Ohio Valley Conference Women's Basketball Tournament. Was there an actual reason for this action, or did you just feel like deleting a page? GWFrog (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There was only one edit on the page before another user tagged it for speedy deletion on grounds of WP:CSD -- test page. The author who originally created the page just added one single character: a period ("."). Would you prefer I restore that single edit and that one, single character? Otherwise, I have re-started the page with the appropriate WikiProject tags. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * TYVM GWFrog (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)